[145987] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Fri Oct 28 14:19:33 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:16:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <327761D3-53F7-4B52-9424-FC694FBB6851@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen,
When you stretch an analogy this thin, it always falls apart. I was referri=
ng to the poison/pollution not the water/air. A drought/vacuum* would not b=
e possible, but would you want the poisoned water/air?
This analogy is bad enough without the nits picked out. I actually mixed tw=
o posts to create a stream analogy out of an air analogy.
I will not go any further and all further follows on to this analogy should=
be ignored. :)
- Brian J.
* a lack of air (for a reasonable deffinition of air) would be a vacuum... =
right?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:11 PM
>To: Brian Johnson
>Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>
>>
>>>> Nor is the data transiting these networks a commons. The air over my
>>>> land is a commons. I don't control it. If I pollute it or if I don't,
>>>> it promptly travels over someone else's land.
>>>
>>> If you choose to pollute the air heavily, the value of the air drops fo=
r
>>> everybody.
>>> If you choose to pollute the Net heavily, the value of the Net drops fo=
r
>>> everybody.
>>>
>>
>> STRIKE 3! Oops got ahead of myself.
>>
>> I'm attempting to prevent the pollution but I may capture a little good =
water
>(almost nothing) along the way. To say that this is a way of "bad acting" =
and
>causes a loss of value to the Internet as a whole is pure folly.
>>
>
>No, it really isn't. Because the good water that you are catching is actua=
lly
>causing
>a drought downstream.
>
>Owen
